Monday, October 20, 2008

This early voting thing is fantastic, especially if you want to beat the mobs on Election Day. Granted, I've read of long lines in some cities, which ought to be an indicator of just how high voter turnout will be this year, and which is hopefully an indicator of how many voters are motivated by a real "mad as hell and not going to take it any more" desire for change. In the past I've only ever voted on the day, and have stood in line for upwards of three hours. Today I just walked in, did my bit, and got out of there in about as much time as it takes to order lunch at Sonic. It was one of those head-smacking "What was I thinking?" moments, you might say.

15 comments:

I am going to vote hopefully on friday. Here in North Carolina, on the first day of early voting, it was a mob scene like election day, with lines of up to three hours reported in my city. I am hoping, that by waiting for a week after the early voting starts, I can avoid the lines

Hmm. Let's see. We have a neocon party-liner and his fundamentalist, young-earth creationist, anti-science running mate, whose administration will have the chance to pack the Supreme Court with far-right ideologues, versus a pro-science, pro-middle-class progressive who was one of the few senators with the foresight and balls to oppose the Iraq invasion from the outset.

Absentee ballots are nice. Here in college I just pull it out of the mail, vote, and then get my room mate to sign saying he witnessed me voting. (Not sure why a witness is required)

Unfortunately, my voting district is an area such that pretty much all the state and county level votes had only one person running each and they were all republican. Shows how much ideological diversity you get in small towns.

My regular polling place is less than 200 feet from where I pick-up my mail. I'll just wait 'til Nov. 4. Besides, I just got laid-off, it's not like I'm gonna be busy that day. (Hehe, wanna guess how I'm voting?)

'Hmm. Let's see. We have a neocon party-liner and his fundamentalist, young-earth creationist, anti-science running mate, whose administration will have the chance to pack the Supreme Court with far-right ideologues, versus a pro-science, pro-middle-class progressive who was one of the few senators with the foresight and balls to oppose the Iraq invasion from the outset.

This is a tough decision for you...why?'

Americans! Forget everything else about the election but this: PALIN IS AN IDIOT.

Watch one of her interviews! Listen to the woman speak! SHE CANNOT HOLD WATER IN AN ARGUMENT. YOU CANNOT ALLOW HER TO BECOME VICE PRESIDENT. IT CANNOT HAPPEN.

For the love of god, do NOT vote republican! Do you have any idea how much worse off you, and the rest of the world will be, just because you think Roe V Wade is morally wrong and think intelligent design is a science?

Martin, I'm a Conservative who deeply distrusts both Senator Obama and the post-1960s New Left intellectual and cultural milieu that spawned him and people like him.

I'm also old enough and politically savvy enough to know that "pro-middle class" can mean damned near anything (like "family values") and "progressive" usually just means Leftist.

Do you really think Obama is any less likely to nominate Supreme Court replacements based on ideology instead of jurisprudential competence or scholarship? Is his side of the aisle known for its restraint in this area?

I regard the McCain/Palin ticket as an atrocity... but that should not obscure the enormous problems with the other side.

Obama can call himself "progressive," "moderate," "a uniter" or whatever else, but his voting record is down-the-line, doctrinaire Leftism.

His ideology also becomes apparent whenever he speaks off-the-cuff or when he lowers his guard among friends - and gets recorded.

Obama is a smart and charming guy, sure, and he is not the monster some of my fellow Conservos depict him as... but his ideas are still the problem.

Are they enough of a problem for me to outweigh the disgrace of McCain/Palin?

To answer your question: YES, I absolutely believe that Obama justices will interpret the constitution in such a way as to be more favorable towards religious freedom and a proper perspective on the first amendment. You don't have to take my word for it; you can look at McCain, who flat-out announced that he would like to see more copies of Antonin Scalia on the court. You know, Scalia is the one who recently complained that the Supreme Court had drifted too far in the direction of accepting that government "cannot favor religion over nonreligion," and then he went on to add that "That rule does not, of course, represent the American tradition."

Your post seems long on vague, unspecified fears of "Leftism" and short on describing specific concerns about likely justices. But IMHO, however you want to slice it, the examples we've seen of who the Republican party prefers to appoint to the SC are clearly out of line with basic atheist interests and the separation of church and state. You may believe that more Scalias would be a good thing for other reasons, but no, I don't perceive any of these particular problems that you allude to, as if Barack Obama is some terrifying shadowy Manchurian Candidate who's getting ready to hand the keys over to, I don't know, man-eating aliens from Zebulon for his own nefarious purposes.

Martin's response to my "flip a coin" remark contained the following terms for the side he dislikes:

"neocon party-liner"

"fundamentalist"

"young-earth creationist"

"anti-science"

"far-right ideologues"

as opposed to his favored side, which is:

"pro-science"

"pro-middle-class"

"progressive"

but when I raise concerns about the influence of New Left ideology, I am trafficking in buzzwords?

At what point do adjectives become buzzwords, then? When we don't agree with their application?

You wrote:

"To answer your question: YES, I absolutely believe that Obama justices will interpret the constitution in such a way as to be more favorable towards religious freedom and a proper perspective on the first amendment."

That wasn't my question. But since you put it that way, are you saying we should be OK with Obama making clearly ideological appointments to the Court so long as their ideology is favorable to certain interests of ours (ie, secularism)?

You wrote:

"You don't have to take my word for it; you can look at McCain, who flat-out announced that he would like to see more copies of Antonin Scalia on the court. You know, Scalia is the one who recently complained that the Supreme Court had drifted too far in the direction of accepting that government "cannot favor religion over nonreligion," and then he went on to add that "That rule does not, of course, represent the American tradition."

And what point, exactly, did I say I was a partisan for McCain - or for that matter, Scalia?

You wrote:

"Your post seems long on vague, unspecified fears of "Leftism" and short on describing specific concerns about likely justices."

An example, then. Obama opposed the appointment not only of Scalia but also John Roberts despite the latter's tremendous qualifications as a jurist.

"But IMHO, however you want to slice it, the examples we've seen of who the Republican party prefers to appoint to the SC are clearly out of line with basic atheist interests and the separation of church and state."

We'd have to hash that out more before I would agree - and I'm not saying I wouldn't agree.

You wrote:

"You may believe that more Scalias would be a good thing for other reasons, but no, I don't perceive any of these particular problems that you allude to,"

Oh goodness, him again? Do you have a Scalia dartboard on your wall? (And if you do, can I get one? That sounds like fun!)

"as if Barack Obama is some terrifying shadowy Manchurian Candidate who's getting ready to hand the keys over to, I don't know, man-eating aliens from Zebulon for his own nefarious purposes."

Well, I for one welcome our new Zebulonian overlords.

Yet there is nothing Manchurian Candidate-ish about wondering how a man's politics, philosophy and background shape his thinking.

If it's fair play for Martin (and me, for that matter) to worry about the baleful influence of the Right on McCain, concern over what kind of hold the Left may have on Obama's worldview is just as proper.

Hold on, wait a second, no. Seriously? When you're rattling off a list of perceived empty buzzwords, "pro-science" is one of the ones you pick? Seriously?

In John McCain, we are talking about a guy whose VP pick to fire up his base -- if not overtly creationist -- at least holds a position on intelligent design that is functionally identical to that of the Discovery Institute. (Teach the Controversy!)

Meanwhile, for the last eight years we have had an administration which has systematically undermined science in very evident, specific ways -- such as bluntly attempting to alter the conclusions of scientific research in ways that are more politically favorable. Scientists tend to frown on that.

So tell me, at what point may I make a decision that a candidate is either good for science or not good for science? Are you always going to assume personal politics and ideological bias whenever those words are applied to anyone?

Yet there is nothing Manchurian Candidate-ish about wondering how a man's politics, philosophy and background shape his thinking.

Sure there isn't. You're free to "wonder" anything you want to, as long as you acknowledge that "wondering" is no substitute for doing the investigation yourself and figuring out the answers to the best of your abilities. Otherwise, simply speculating on the horrific things he MIGHT do, without evidence, isn't being politically savvy -- it's using a transparent rhetorical ploy.

And what point, exactly, did I say I was a partisan for McCain - or for that matter, Scalia?

Oh sure, you didn't, I acknowledge that. All you did was play this typical card of acting of being "fair and balanced" by pretending that you don't have any basis for choosing between them, because they are equally bad in different ways from your perspective. All I'm pointing out is that it's not out of line for Martin to openly prefer one candidate on the grounds of multiple issues that most atheists would care about. I think if you proudly state that you can't identify the difference between two candidates yourself, that doesn't necessarily label you as a jaded and transcendent outside observer of the political system... sometimes it just means that you haven't done the homework and you're complaining that others won't do it for you.

Hold on, wait a second, no. Seriously? When you're rattling off a list of perceived empty buzzwords, "pro-science" is one of the ones you pick? Seriously?

...

So tell me, at what point may I make a decision that a candidate is either good for science or not good for science? Are you always going to assume personal politics and ideological bias whenever those words are applied to anyone?

Absolutely not. I agree with your take on this. In fact, if you haven't seen it yet, here's a nice Chris Hitchens slam vs Palin at Slate.com:

http://slate.com/id/2203120/

I do not employ the word 'buzzwords' as synonymous with terms like 'lies' or 'slander.' A a descriptor can be perfectly apt and remain a 'buzzword.'

For me, 'buzzword' is a neutral term. You added the qualifiers "perceived" and "empty," not I.

For example, 'neocon' is indisputably a buzzword in contemporary political discourse. I do not take exception with Martin using it in regard to John McCain because it is largely applicable.

(Whether McCain knows Leo Strauss from the Lucky Charms leprechaun or has the slightest acquaintance with Neo-Conservative philosophy is another matter, of course.)

Sure there isn't. You're free to "wonder" anything you want to, as long as you acknowledge that "wondering" is no substitute for doing the investigation yourself and figuring out the answers to the best of your abilities. Otherwise, simply speculating on the horrific things he MIGHT do, without evidence, isn't being politically savvy -- it's using a transparent rhetorical ploy.

Agreed again, except that in this case I went from pronounced optimism and enthusiasm about Obama to my present state of wary skepticism precisely from investigating his politics, background and legislative record.

Mine is a case of speculation arising from research, not in place of it.

Oh sure, you didn't, I acknowledge that. All you did was play this typical card of acting of being "fair and balanced" by pretending that you don't have any basis for choosing between them, because they are equally bad in different ways from your perspective.

On the matter of being "equally bad," my point about the Supreme Court was that there are other principles in play here besides "Which candidate's nominees are more likely to tell theists to shove it" - namely the idea that judicial competence should trump ideological compatibility.

All I'm pointing out is that it's not out of line for Martin to openly prefer one candidate on the grounds of multiple issues that most atheists would care about.

Did I say it was?

I think if you proudly state that you can't identify the difference between two candidates yourself, that doesn't necessarily label you as a jaded and transcendent outside observer of the political system... sometimes it just means that you haven't done the homework and you're complaining that others won't do it for you.

Agreed again, since this does not describe me. And for the record, I share your impatience with the pseudo-ennui so fashionable among the politically apathetic; it's a shallow pose and evasion of civic responsibility.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.